A plausible scenario is that the government did it because they want more people to be pro-gun control. If martial law is ever declared, all of those guns in circulation will make it more difficult for them. Maybe they want to declare gun ownership illegal and collect as many guns as possible before they declare marshal law. The more pro-gun control people there are, the easier it will be for them to declare gun ownership illegal and collect guns.

But what do you think of the study of the acoustics that seem to show that there were two people shooting?

Click to expand...

You do know that the tape at least some of them were using for that was done several minutes after the shooting, right? I haven't heard of any "analysts" using others, but there might be a "new" one out there somewhere.

You do know that the tape at least some of them were using for that was done several minutes after the shooting, right? I haven't heard of any "analysts" using others, but there might be a "new" one out there somewhere.

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused here. When you say "Tape", are you referring to the footage in the YouTube videos?

A plausible scenario is that the government did it because they want more people to be pro-gun control. If martial law is ever declared, all of those guns in circulation will make it more difficult for them. Maybe they want to declare gun ownership illegal and collect as many guns as possible before they declare marshal law. The more pro-gun control people there are, the easier it will be for them to declare gun ownership illegal and collect guns.

It's just a theory.

Click to expand...

I can see a gap in the analysis for second shooter. 1 ) the field of the shooting , means the area is wide spread so the first shot will be at distance "A" than the second shot can be at distance "B " in the field.
So if the field is 200 ft by 200 ft the sound of the arrival of the bullet will be different and that might give an impression of a second shooter ?

http://www.tomatobubble.com/id196.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
RESPONSE: "I don't believe everything that's on the Internet. But apparently you believe everything that's on the Idiot Box! I only believe those things which are verifiable, and consistent with my own sense of reasoning and logic. The beauty of the Internet is that, unlike the TV that you worship so much, all sides of an issue are presented on the Internet. It allows a critical thinker to figure out what the true story is. The TV doesn't give you that option. Do you really believe that the media presents the whole story? Are you that naive? (laugh) Remember the fairy tale of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? The media shoved that lie down our throats. So why do you trust the media so blindly and not the Internet?"